Relationship between history of hormonal contraceptive use and anaemia status among women in sub-Saharan Africa: A large population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaemia among women has been reported to be a significant contributor to hemorrhage, exacerbated risk of stillbirths, miscarriages, and maternal mortalities. Hence, understanding the factors associated with anaemia is imperative to develop preventive strategies. We examined the association between history of hormonal contraceptive use and risk of anaemia among women in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We analyzed data from the recent Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) of sixteen countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Countries with recent DHSs conducted from 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. A total of 88,474 women of reproductive age were included. We used percentages to summarize the prevalence of hormonal contraceptives and anaemia among women of reproductive age. We used multilevel binary logistic regression analysis to examine the association between hormonal contraceptives and anaemia. We presented the results using crude odds ratio (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR), with their respective 95 percent confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: On the average, 16.2% of women are using hormonal contraceptives and this ranged from 7.2% in Burundi to 37.7% in Zimbabwe. The pooled prevalence of anaemia was 41%, ranging from 13.5% in Rwanda to 58.0% in Benin. Women who used hormonal contraceptives were less likely to be anaemic compared to those who were not using hormonal contraceptives (aOR = 0.56; 95%CI = 0.53, 0.59). At the country-level, hormonal contraceptive use was associated with a reduced likelihood of anaemia in 14 countries, except for Cameroon and Guinea. CONCLUSION: The study underscores the importance of promoting the use of hormonal contraceptives in communities and regions that have a high burden of anaemia among women. Specifically, health promotion interventions aimed at promoting the use of hormonal contraceptives among women must be tailored to meet the needs of adolescents, multiparous women, those in the poorest wealth index, and women in union as these sub-populations were at significantly higher risk of anaemia in sub-Saharan Africa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".